Submitted by: Galina Vedeneyeva (represented by Alexander Manov, Director
of the International Protection Centre in Moscow)

Alleged victim: Konstantin Vedeneyev (the author's son)

State party: Russian Federation

Date of communication: 24 February 1997 (initial submission)

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 29 March 2005

Adopts the following:

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY

1.1 The author of the communication is Galina Maksimova Vedeneyeva, a Russian
citizen. She claims that her son, Konstantin Vedeneyev, a Russian citizen born
in 1966, deceased, is a victim of a violation by the Russian Federation of articles
6(1), 7 and 10(1) of the Covenant. She is represented by Karina Moskalenko,
Director of the International Protection Centre in Moscow.

1.2 The Optional Protocol entered into force for the Russian Federation on
1 January 1992.

Factual background

2.1 The author states that on 20 April 1994, Konstantin Vedeneyev was arrested
in Tomsk on suspicion of having committed a murder in Moscow. He was transferred
to Moscow and taken to Pretrial Detention Centre No 1, and on an unspecified
subsequent date to Moscow Pretrial Detention Centre No 2, for interrogation.
Vedeneyev initially protested his innocence, but allegedly was tortured by police
officers to extract a confession from him. The author received letters from
her son which described the treatment he suffered, which included being beaten
and subjected to electric shocks. As a result of this treatment, Vedeneyev eventually
provided a false confession to the murder in question, which he later retracted.
He saw a lawyer for the first time on 6 May 1994. The investigation into the
case concluded on 20 December 1994, and the case was due to be heard in early
1995.

2.2 The author states that her son's letters described the unacceptable conditions
in which he was held at Moscow Pretrial Detention Centre No 2. He was kept in
an over-crowed cell with 100 other inmates, had no bed to sleep on, and received
inadequate food. Vedeneyev contracted tuberculosis but received no proper medical
treatment. His condition worsened, and on 26 January 1995, Vedeneyev was transferred
to Pretrial Detention Centre No1 for medical treatment, where he died on 28
January 1995. The cause of death recorded on his death certificate was tuberculosis
of the lungs. The author states that her son had been a strong and healthy man
when he was taken into custody.

2.3 On an unspecified date, the author filed a complaint with the Moscow City
Procurator, in which she stated that her son had been tortured to extract a
confession; that he was not provided with access to legal counsel until over
two weeks after his arrest; and that he was kept in terrible conditions at Moscow
Pretrial Detention No 2, where he contracted tuberculosis. She stated that keeping
her son under such conditions amounted to an extrajudicial death sentence, and
requested that those responsible for her son's death be brought to justice.

2.4 By letter dated 21 March 1996, the director of Pretrial Detention Centre
No 2 informed the author that he had received her complaint from the Moscow
City Procurator, and that the circumstances of her son's death had been investigated.
He stated that no violations of rules relating to conditions of detention or
the provision of medical assistance to detainees had been identified. According
to the letter, Vedeneyev had been diagnosed with acute tuberculosis on 17 November
1994, for which he received appropriate medical treatment; on 20 January 1995,
his condition worsened, resulting in him being hospitalized; he was further
diagnosed with a severe pneumonia. He was finally taken to a surgery department
at Moscow Pretrial Detention Centre No 1 on 26 January 1995, but efforts to
save his life were unsuccessful.

2.5 The author states that she filed appeals with the regional, municipal
and general procurators, but does not provide any details about these appeals,
other than to state that they were unsuccessful.

The complaint

3. The author states that her son was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment, in violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant.
She contends that the conditions in Moscow Pretrial Detention Centre No 2 were
such that her son was not treated with humanity and respect for his dignity
during his detention at that facility, in violation of article 10(1); and that
her son's death from tuberculosis in these circumstances amounted to a violation
of his right to life under article 6(1) of the Covenant.

State party's submission and author's comments

4. In its submission of 10 December 2001, the State party contends that the
communication is inadmissible because the author failed to exhaust domestic
remedies, as she did not appeal to the General Procurator of the Russian Federation,
nor to the Supreme Court.

5. In a submission dated 22 August 2004, the author states that she does not
consider the Procurator General of the Russian Federation or the Supreme Court
to be bodies capable of providing effective remedies. She does not provide any
explanation for this submission.

6. In a further submission dated 7 February 2005, the State party provides
further information on the appeal processes which it says were available to
the author, but were not exhausted. It states that all decisions of organs of
state power are subject to appeal, as guaranteed by article 46 of the Russian
Constitution. Under Russian law, representatives of a victim are able to file
an appeal on his or her behalf. The grounds for changing a decision at first
instance include the decision's non-compliance with legal provisions, unjustness,
or disparity between the conclusions drawn at first instance and the relevant
facts. The Law on the procurator provides that any complaints about unlawful
actions are reviewable by the procuracy, and that a complaint to the procuracy
does not preclude a person from filing a complaint directly in a Court. The
State party reiterates its view that the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its Rules of Procedure,
decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

7.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the
purposes of article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol.

7.3 The Committee has noted the State party's submission that the author did
not exhaust available domestic remedies, as she did not take her complaints
about the alleged mistreatment of her son to the General Procurator of the Russian
Federation and subsequently to the Supreme Court. Whilst the author contends
that these bodies would not provide an effective remedy in the present case,
no explanation has been provided by her in support of this contention. The Committee
considers that, whilst the author of a communication does not bear the sole
burden of proof for a contention that a particular domestic remedy is ineffective,
an author must at least present a prima facie argument in support of such a
proposition, and substantiate his or her reasons for believing that the remedy
in question is or would be ineffective. In the present case, the author has
not done this.

8. Accordingly, the Committee decides that:

(a) the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of
the Optional Protocol;

(b) this decision shall be communicated to the State party and the author.

___________________

[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part
of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]